Effectiveness of Computer-Based Scaffolding in the Context of Problem-Based Learning for Stem Education: Bayesian Meta-analysis

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 397-429

  Kim, Nam Ju ^a   Belland, Brian R ^b   Walker, Andrew E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

^b UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian meta analysis; Computer based scaffolding; Intelligent tutoring systems; Problem based learning; STEM education

Indexed keywords

EID: 85026489411     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1     Document Type: Article

References (150)

1. Achieve, I. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington: The National Academies Press.
2. Ahn, S., Ames, A. J., & Myers, N. D. (2012). A review of meta-analyses in education: methodological strengths and weaknesses. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 436–476.
3. *Ak, Ş. (2015). The role of technology-based scaffolding in problem-based online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 680–693. 10.1111/bjet.12254.
4. Aleven, V. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147–179. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00061-7.
5. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207.
6. Anderson, J. R., Matessa, M., & Lebiere, C. (1997). ACT-R: a theory of higher level cognition and its relation to visual attention. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(4), 439–462. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1204_5.
7. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
8. *Ardac, D., & Sezen, A.H. (2002). Effectiveness of computer-based chemistry instruction in enhancing the learning of content and variable control under guided versus unguided conditions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11, 39–48. 10.1023/A:1013995314094.
9. Azevedo, R. (2005). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193–197.
10. Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 111–127.
11. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition—implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 367–379. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9.
12. Babu, G. J. (2012). Bayesian and frequentist approaches. In Online Proceedings of the Astronomical Data Analysis Conference.
13. *Barab, S.A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S.J., & Warren, S. (2009). Transformational play as a curricular scaffold: using videogames to support science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 305–320. 10.1007/s10956-009-9171-5.
14. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3–12.
15. Bayarri, M.J., & Berger, J.O. (2004). The interplay of Bayesian and frequentist analysis. Statistical Science, 58–80.
16. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(2), 95–115.
17. Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: a preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5/6), 23.
18. *Belland, B. R. (2008). Supporting middle school students' construction of evidence-based arguments: Impact of and student interactions with computer-based argumentation scaffolds (Order No. 3330215). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (304502316). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304502316?accountid=14761. Accessed 1 Nov 2016.
19. Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 505–518). New York: Springer.
20. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 667–694. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z.
21. Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Olsen, M. W., & Leary, H. (2015). A pilot meta-analysis of computer-based scaffolding in STEM education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 183–197 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.1.183. Accessed 1 Nov 2016.
22. Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. doi:10.3102/0034654316670999.
23. Beyer, B. K. (1997). Improving student thinking: a comprehensive approach. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
24. Biondi-Zoccai, G., Agostoni, P., Abbate, A., D’Ascenzo, F., & Modena, M. G. (2012). Potential pitfalls of meta-analyses of observational studies in cardiovascular research. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 59(3), 292–293.
25. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Handbook I, cognitive domain. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. New York: Longman.
26. *Butz, B.P., Duarte, M., & Miller, S.M. (2006). An intelligent tutoring system for circuit analysis. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49, 216–223. 10.1109/TE.2006.872407.
27. Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education? Science, 329(5995), 996–996.
28. Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, S. F. (2001). Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 21–33. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.2001.00156.x.
29. Chen, C. H., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2007). The effect of web-based question prompts on scaffolding knowledge integration and ill-structured problem solving. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 359–375.
30. *Chen, Y.S., Kao, T.C., & Sheu, J.P. (2003). A mobile learning system for scaffolding bird watching learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 347–359. 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00036.x.
31. Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. (2008). Instructor modeling and online question prompts for supporting peer-questioning during online discussion. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(3), 255–275.
32. *Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Open learning environments and the impact of a pedagogical agent. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 211–226. 10.2190/3UL1-4756-H837-2704.
33. *Clark, D.B., Touchman, S., Martinez-Garza, M., Ramirez-Marin, F., & Skjerping Drews, T. (2012). Bilingual language supports in online science inquiry environments. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1207–1224. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.019.
34. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
35. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
36. Cuevas, H. M., Fiore, S. M., & Oser, R. L. (2002). Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive processes in low verbal ability learners: use of diagrams in computer-based training environments. Instructional Science, 30(6), 433–464. doi:10.1023/A:1020516301541.
37. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91–142. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_4.
38. Dellaportas, P., Forster, J. J., & Ntzoufras, I. (2002). On Bayesian model and variable selection using MCMC. Statistics and Computing, 12(1), 27–36.
39. Dennen, V. P. (2004). Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 2, 813–828.
40. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. Dillenbourg & G. Kanselaar (Eds.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
41. Douglas, J., Iverson, E., & Kalyandurg, C. (2004). Engineering in the K-12 classroom: an analysis of current practices and guidelines for the future. Washington: American Society for Engineering Education.
42. Downing, K., Kwong, T., Chan, S. W., Lam, T. F., & Downing, W. K. (2009). Problem-based learning and the development of metacognition. Higher Education, 57(5), 609–621.
43. Edwards, A. W. F. (1992). Likelihood. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
44. Ellison, A. M. (2004). Bayesian inference in ecology. Ecology Letters, 7(6), 509–520.
45. *Etheris, A. I., & Tan, S. C. (2004). Computer-supported collaborative problem solving and anchored instruction in a mathematics classroom: an exploratory study. International Journal of Learning Technology, 1, 16–36. 10.1504/ijlt.2004.003680.
46. Findley, J.L. (2011). An examination of the efficacy of classical and Bayesian meta-analysis approaches for addressing important meta-analysis objectives (Doctoral Dissertation). New York: City University of New York. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3469784).
47. Gallagher, S. A., Sher, B. T., Stepien, W. J., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95(3), 136–146.
48. Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. (175–205).
49. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38. doi:10.1007/BF02504515.
50. Ge, X., Chen, C. H., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designers' problem-solving processes using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of educational computing research, 33(2), 219–248. doi:10.2190/5f6j-hhvf-2u2b-8t3g.
51. *Ge, X., Planas, L. G., & Er, N. (2010). A cognitive support system to scaffold students’ problem-based learning in a web-based learning environment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 4(1), 30–56. 10.7771/1541-5015.1093.
52. Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H.S., & Rubin, D.B. (2014). Bayesian data analysis (vol 2). London: Taylor & Francis.
53. Geyer, C. J. (2010). Introduction to Markov chain Monte Carlo. In A. Gelman, S. Brooks, G. Jones, & X. L. Meng (Eds.), In handbook of Markov chain Monte Carlo: methods and applications (pp. 3–47). London: CRC Press.
54. Greco, T., Zangrillo, A., Biondi-Zoccai, G., & Landoni, G. (2013). Meta-analysis: pitfalls and hints. Heart, Lung and Vessels, 5(4), 219–225.
55. Guolo, A., & Varin, C. (2015). Random-effects meta-analysis: the number of studies matters. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 0962280215583568, 1–19. doi:10.1177/0962280215583568.
56. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open-ended learning environments: foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: volume II: a new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115–140). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
57. Hartung, J., Knapp, G., & Sinha, B. K. (2011). Statistical meta-analysis with applications (Vol. 738). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
58. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
59. Hawkins, J., & Pea, R. D. (1987). Tools for bridging the cultures of everyday and scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 291–307.
60. Hedges, L. V. (1986). Issues in meta-analysis. Review of Research in Education, 13, 353–398. doi:10.2307/1167228.
61. Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B.B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001). Abstraction in context: Epistemic actions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 195–222.
62. Higgins, J., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2009). A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 172(1), 137–159.
63. Higgins, J., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Jüni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., et al. (2011). The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928.
64. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266. doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3.
65. *Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Day, R. S. (1999). Contextualized questioning to scaffold learning from simulations. Computers & Education, 32, 151–164. 10.1016/S0360-1315(98)00062-1.
66. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Ferrari, M. (1997). The problem-based learning tutorial: Cultivating higher order thinking skills. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 401–422. doi:10.1177/016235329702000405.
67. Hmelo-Silver, C.E., & Lin, X. (2000). Becoming self-directed learners: strategy development in problem-based learning. Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions, 227–250.
68. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368.
69. Hoffman, J. L., Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2003). The nature of middle school learners' science content understandings with the use of on-line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 323–346.
70. Hoidn, S., & Kärkkäinen, K. (2014). Promoting skills for innovation in higher education: a literature review on the effectiveness of problem-based learning and of teaching behaviors. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 100. Paris: OECD Publishing.
71. Hu, D. (2006). The effects of scaffolding on the performance of students in computer-based concept linking and retention of comprehension (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Blacksburg: Virginia Tech.
72. Jonassen, D. H. (1999a). Designing constructivist learning environments. Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2, 215–239.
73. Jonassen, D. H. (1999b). Learning with technology: a constructivist perspective. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
74. Kaweski, D., & Nickeson, M. (1997). C-SHRP Bayesian modeling: a user’s guide. Ottawa: Transportation Association of Canada. Retrieved from /view.aspx?id=474116.
75. Kay, M., Nelson, G.L., & Hekler, E.B. (2016). Researcher-centered design of statistics: why Bayesian statistics better fit the culture and incentives of HCI. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4521–4532). ACM.
76. Kicinski, M. (2013). Publication bias in recent meta-analyses. PloS One, 8(11), e81823.
77. Klauenberg, K., Walzel, M., Ebert, B., & Elster, C. (2015). Informative prior distributions for ELISA analyses. Biostatistics, online first.
78. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design(tm) into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495–547. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2.
79. Koricheva, J., Gurevitch, J., & Mengersen, K. (2013). Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
80. Kramarski, B., & Gutman, M. (2006). How can self-regulated learning be supported in mathematical E-learning environments? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 24–33. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00157.x.
81. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
82. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
83. Kuenzi, J.J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) education: background, federal policy, and legislative action. CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/crsdocs/35/. Accessed 1 Nov 2016.
84. Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: a meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78. doi:10.3102/0034654315581420.
85. Kumar, A. N. (2005). In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 216–220). New York: ACM. 10.1145/1047344.1047422.
86. Lam, P., Doverspike, D., Zhao, J., Zhe, J., & Menzemer, C. (2008). An evaluation of a STEM program for middle school students on learning disability related IEPs. Journal of STEM education, 9(1&2), 21–29.
87. Lee, C. Y., & Chen, M. P. (2009). A computer game as a context for non-routine mathematical problem solving: the effects of type of question prompt and level of prior knowledge. Computers & Education, 52(3), 530–542. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.008.
88. Leemkuil, H., & de Jong, T. (2012). Adaptive advice in learning with a computer-based knowledge management simulation game. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 653–665. doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0141.
89. Lewis, M. G., & Nair, N. S. (2015). Review of applications of Bayesian meta-analysis in systematic reviews. Global Journal of Medicine and Public Health, 4(1), 1–9.
90. Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory Into Practice, 32(3), 131–137.
91. Li, S. (2001). Contingent scaffolding strategies in computer-based learning environments (Doctoral Dissertation). Bloomington: Indiana University. Retrieved from Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3024299).
92. Lin, T. C., Hsu, Y. S., Lin, S. S., Changlai, M. L., Yang, K. Y., & Lai, T. L. (2012). A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 437–455.
93. Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313(5790), 1049–1050.
94. Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 5–21 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30220414. Accessed 1 Nov 2016.
95. Lord, T., & Baviskar, S. (2007). Moving students from information recitation to information understanding-exploiting Bloom’s taxonomy in creating science questions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 40.
96. Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 901–918. doi:10.1037/a0037123.
97. Melero, J., Hernández-Leo, D., & Blat, J. (2011). A review of scaffolding approaches in game-based learning environments. Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning, (717–724).
98. Mengersen, K. L., Drovandi, C. C., Robert, C. P., Pyne, D. B., & Gore, C. J. (2016). Bayesian estimation of small effects in exercise and sports science. PloS One, 11(4), e0147311.
99. Neal, R. M. (2000). Markov chain sampling methods for Dirichlet process mixture models. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 9(2), 249–265.
100. Newmann, F. M. (1991). Promoting higher order thinking in social studies: overview of a study of 16 high school departments. Theory & Research in Social Education, 19(4), 324–340.
101. Pata, K., Lehtinen, E., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Inter-relations of tutor's and peers' scaffolding and decision-making discourse acts. Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and Cognition, 34(4), 313–341.
102. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.
103. Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2002). The effects of modeling expert cognitive strategies during problem-based learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 353–380.
104. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: a motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248–258.
105. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: what have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40, 1–12. doi:10.1207/%20s15326985ep4001_1.
106. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Hübscher, R. (2003). Improving navigation and learning in hypertext environments with navigable concept maps. Human–Computer Interaction, 18, 395–428. doi:10.1207/S15327051HCI1804_3.
107. Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40, 235–244. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4004_5.
108. *Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59, 82–94. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.010.
109. Raphael, L. M., Pressley, M., & Mohan, L. (2008). Engaging instruction in middle school classrooms: an observational study of nine teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 109(1), 61–81.
110. Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods (vol 1). Newbury Park: Sage.
111. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2.
112. Robins, J., & Wasserman, L. (2000). Conditioning, likelihood, and coherence: a review of some foundational concepts. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(452), 1340–1346.
113. *Rosen, Y., & Tager, M. (2014). Making student thinking visible through a concept map in computer-based assessment of critical thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50, 249–270. 10.2190/EC.50.2.f.
114. Rouinfar, A., Agra, E., Murray, J., Larson, A., Loschky, L.C., & Rebello, N.S. (2014). Influence of visual cueing on students’ eye movements while solving physics problems. In Proceedings of the symposium on eye tracking research and applications (pp. 191–194). New York: ACM. 10.1145/2578153.2578181.
115. Royall, R. M. (1970). Finite population sampling—on labels in estimation. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 41(5), 1774–1779.
116. Sanders, M. (2009). Stem, stem education, stemmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
117. Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1002.
118. Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, P. A. Ertmer, & P. A. (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning: exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows (pp. 5–15). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
119. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96. doi:10.1007/BF02505026.
120. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51–68.
121. Schmid, C. H., & Mengersen, K. (2013). Bayesian meta-analysis. In J. Koricheva, J. Gurevitch, & K. Mengersen (Eds.), The handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution (pp. 174–191). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
122. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando: Academic Press.
123. Schrader, C., & Bastiaens, T. (2012). Learning in educational computer games for novices: the impact of support provision types on virtual presence, cognitive load, and learning outcomes. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(3), 206–227.
124. Schwarzer, G., Carpenter, J. R., & Rücker, G. (2015). Meta-analysis with R. New York, NY: Springer.
125. *Siler, S., Mowery, D., Magaro, C., Willows, K., & Klahr, D. (2010). Comparison of a computer-based to hands-on lesson in experimental design. In V. Aleven, J. Kay, & J. Mostow (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 408–410). Berlin: Springer.
126. *Simons, K. D., & Klein, J. D. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35(1), 41–72. 10.1007/s11251-006-9002-5.
127. Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & Van Der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 64(4), 583–639.
128. Spiegelhalter, D.J., Abrams, K.R., & Myles, J.P. (2004). Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation (vol 13). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
129. *Stark, D.M. (2013). Ill-structured problems, scaffolding and problem-solving ability of novice nursing students (PhD Thesis). Minneapolis: Capella University. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3553778).
130. Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students’ mathematical learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 970–987. doi:10.1037/a0032447.
131. Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 331–347. doi:10.1037/a0034752.
132. *Su, Y. (2007). The impact of scaffolding type and prior knowledge in a hypermedia, problem-based learning environment (PhD Thesis). Tempe: Arizona State University. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3288016). Retrieved from http://dist.lib.usu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/304896264?accountid=14761. Accessed 1 Nov 2016.
133. *Su, Y., & Klein, J.D. (2010). Using scaffolds in problem-based hypermedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19(3), 327–347.
134. Sun, D., & Ye, K. (1995). Reference prior Bayesian analysis for normal mean products. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 589–597.
135. Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Effects of problem-based learning and traditional instruction on self-regulated learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(5), 307–320.
136. Sutton, A. J., & Abrams, K. R. (2001). Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10(4), 277–303.
137. Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 321–363.
138. Thistlethwaite, J. E., Davies, D., Ekeocha, S., Kidd, J. M., Macdougall, C., Matthews, P., … Clay, D. (2012). The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23. Medical Teacher, 34, e421–e444. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.680939
139. *Toth, E.E., Suthers, D.D., & Lesgold, A.M. (2002). “Mapping to know”: the effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264–286. 10.1002/sce.10004.
140. Tuckman, B. W., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (2004). Behavioral interventions for reducing procrastination among university students. In H. C. Schouwenburg, C. H. Lay, T. A. Pychyl, & J. R. Ferrari (Eds.), Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings (pp. 91–103). Washington: American Psychological Association.
141. Turner, R. M., Jackson, D., Wei, Y., Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. (2015). Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 34(6), 984–998.
142. Valentine, J. C., Pigott, T. D., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). You need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(3), 215–247. doi:10.3102/1076998609346961.
143. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: a decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.
144. VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.
145. *Weusijana, B.K.A., Riesbeck, C.K., & Walsh, J.T., Jr (2004). Fostering reflection with Socratic Tutoring Software: results of using inquiry teaching strategies with web-based HCI techniques. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 561–567). Santa Monica, California: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1149126.1149195. Accessed 1 Nov 2016.
146. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.
147. Wu, H. (2010). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced science education (PhD Thesis). College Station: Texas A&M University. Retreved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 741013672).
148. Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121–169.
149. Zydney, J. M. (2005). Eighth-grade students defining complex problems: the effectiveness of scaffolding in a multimedia program. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14, 61–90.
150. *Zydney, J.M. (2008). Cognitive tools for scaffolding students defining an ill-structured problem. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38, 353–385. 10.2190/EC.38.4.a.